Maggie's Farm

I get that you're venting, but calling a senior district judge a "so-called" judge and making an argument based on what "everybody knows" puts you at the same low, low level as the snowflakes and social justice libtards who whine when things don't go their way. in fact, apart from point of view, I don't see any difference between you and them. they screeched, now you screech.

I expect that liberals posting to any internet forum will have little to no understanding of any legal issues, I wish I could have greater expectations from conservatives. but I don't. and because they're better at PR spew than you are, its your kind of bullshit reaction that contributes to the noise level that we need to cut through to make our point with intelligence.

you have some well stated points.

1. zachriels. she's getting bitchslapped stupid daily, and I see why this is frustrating because it keeps slinking back for more of the same, but, in fact, its a good thing overall. zhe's just here to disrupt, and it'll be here until it gets bored. not well formally educated, but clever with wikipedia and from whatever source she cribs from, which gives a superficial knowledge which, unfortunately is coupled with her well honed ability to manipulate a discussion. as I've said over and over, if you control the terms and assumptions of a debate you'll control the range of outcomes. this zachrrels does well. This is true for any pro-illegal group: illegals here without a visa or overstayed a visa = immigrant meaning the fix involves legal permanent residency and the "pathway to citizenship". they won't propose a solution like temporary admission to follow the cabbage harvest then go home, because fixing the problem is not what they want. by the terminology they use "migrant", "immigrant", "DREAMER", any fix that makes them lawfully entered non-immigrants who have to eventually go home is off the table.

sacrhriels will never convince anyone on this site, or most other sites, (a) because that's not important to him, (b) because she's typically wrong. BUT, there are readers of MF who never post, and I'm sure there are a lot of them. THEY read his preachy screeds and see how she's taken apart when the debate doesn't degenerate into "yes it is / no it isn't." THAT's where we win, even if you don't see the results, and that's how windy's "deport all immigrants" bullshit can be so harmful, since any sane reader will conclude that windy's opinion is just as ridiculous as zachisreels'.

2. 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens. casually read the statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 . now glance at the administrative rules that interpret congressional intent on how the statute is to be enforced: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/8cfr.html Don't try to read them, it would take a day. I could link the Board of Immigration Appeals and the district, appellate and Supreme Court decisions interpreting the above but there are thousands of these.

so "inadmissibility" is not a self-evident concept. like "due process" or "freedom of speech", there's this huge body of law built up over decades that explains what "inadmissibility" means. Rush is doing a show, he's equating "Syrian" with "Islam bomber who wants to fly a piper cub into your kid's little league game". that's what his audience wants to hear, and it works fine on any conservative website or forum, and if I were a campaign manager, I'd certainly use this image; but make a simplistic argument like that in immigration court, or the ninth circuit, and you'll get destroyed by the other side.

Now look at the statute again, in detail if you can stand it. Notice two things.

First, it talks about inadmissibility of individuals because of some undesirable traits. even where that trait is membership in some group, it still talks about individuals. so when the government takes actions against groups then there are conservatives who see the ugliness of Korematsu. I invite you to read Justice Murphy's blistgering dissent in this case, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/323/214/case.html it starts at page 233. obviously, the situations are not the same, Korematsu was a US citizen, but Justice Murphy invokes fundamental American principles that are both prophetic and worth pondering.



this, I think, is a statement of true American conservatism.

some might argue there is no right to claim refuge in the US, and Murphy's dissent has no application, but in fact, Congress says that refugees have a right to make this kind of claim on America, and the ultimate authority for that claim is the Constitution.

Now, when you read the statute, look for all the exceptions and waivers. there's a lot, all of which are subject to the same kind of interpretation by the CFR and courts as the rest of the statute. someone found inadmissible still might qualify for a waive of inadmissibility for any of dozens of reasons. obviously a card-carrying ISIS member is not going to qualify, but the point is, "admissibility" is not an easy concept to discuss or debate in a general blog.

any, some points to consider.

your problem is you have a reflexive, and therefore unreasoned, hatred of immigrants that bars you from engaging in any sane discussion of how to deal with the libtards. your comments here are, frankly, childish and do not, in the least help the conservative cause.

if you think being told "you're wrong" is insulting, then maybe you should step away from the internet and go outside for a while.

you're looking for attention, aren't you.

deported